The Shining (1980)

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

What the phuck kind of idiotic statement is that?
That's just as assinine as the post that "European's are more intelligent hence they get a shorter version"

Ummmm no! That would be like it if I said "Europeans got a shorter version because they have shorter attention spans!"

Who gives a shit where the version comes from? Let's say the longer cut is "The Mars Version". Well then I love the Mars Version!

This isn't America vs Britain! I like the longer version, as do the majority of people that love (not like) this film. If youre one of the many that like to analize the film and Kubriks story on a deeper level, then the Longer Mars Version is what one watches

I'm just waiting for someone to post actual quotes or interviews of Kubrick stating which version was his favorite. Until then...

[Buddy Ackerman]

The only reference I could find is that Kubrick championed the European cut when it came to home video. However, I can't find a direct quote from the man himself.

At the end of the day, Kubrick cut the film himself, entirely of his own accord. Whether he did it for artistic reasons or for financial is unclear, merely that he thought this version would play better in Europe after getting a less than stellar response from the longer cut in the US (that also doesn't mean that he viewed them as different cultures with different sensibilities, merely that one release came after the other).

The important thing was that he made the decision and made the cuts, not the studio, resulting in two versions of the film, both cut by the director, both perfectly valid and with their own strengths. Whichever one you prefer is up to you, neither is the 'correct' or 'definitive' cut.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

The only reference I could find is that Kubrick championed the European cut when it came to home video. However, I can't find a direct quote from the man himself.

At the end of the day, Kubrick cut the film himself, entirely of his own accord. Whether he did it for artistic reasons or for financial is unclear, merely that he thought this version would play better in Europe after getting a less than stellar response from the longer cut in the US (that also doesn't mean that he viewed them as different cultures with different sensibilities, merely that one release came after the other).

The important thing was that he made the decision and made the cuts, not the studio, resulting in two versions of the film, both cut by the director, both perfectly valid and with their own strengths. Whichever one you prefer is up to you, neither is the 'correct' or 'definitive' cut.

This.

(not that I think it'll stop the bickering)

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by MrJoeKalel

I'm just waiting for someone to post actual quotes or interviews of Kubrick stating which version was his favorite. Until then...

I would not have the time or effort to post links or citations, but I have read from several places that he preferred the shorter European version and edited the American version one week after it was released (removing a scene about the tennis ball at the end). That Kubrick liked the European version is not surprising. He did lots of strange things. He hated letterbox for home video. While he was a perfectionist on many things (read about the typewriter and how he treated Shelly Duvall), the fact that the rotors on the helicopter made it in the shot is interesting. He likely intended a different aspect ratio and for the projectionist to cut that out. Just because he did certain things or preferred certain cuts in no way diminishes my love for his movies. I just so happened to have watched the US Blu-ray over the weekend. I thought it was as brilliant as ever. People debate his intentions on many things, and the problem is people have things for which to back their opinions up. I would love to hear a long interview from Stephen King about it, since there were interesting topics there as well.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I would not have the time or effort to post links or citations, but I have read from several places that he preferred the shorter European version and edited the American version one week after it was released (removing a scene about the tennis ball at the end).l.

Half the critics AND movie-goers as well didn't like the movie when it first came out. I hated it. But as time went by and I got older, it grew on me... Hell, Siskel or Ebert hated it in his first review, then recently re-reviewed it and loved it.

Has nothing to do with a longer or shorter version.. and everything to do with people mistaking "especially well-written scripts which use complex and advanced psychology to communicate hidden narratives" with "oh, this movie is slow"

Slow Burn doesn't mean "slow"

"For a horror movie, there's only one on screen murder!"

Right! That's why its so awesome. Its not a cheesy Friday the 13th film!

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

What the phuck kind of idiotic statement is that?
That's just as assinine as the post that "European's are more intelligent hence they get a shorter version"

Ummmm no! That would be like it if I said "Europeans got a shorter version because they have shorter attention spans!"

Who gives a shit where the version comes from? Let's say the longer cut is "The Mars Version". Well then I love the Mars Version!

This isn't America vs Britain! I like the longer version, as do the majority of people that love (not like) this film. If youre one of the many that like to analize the film and Kubriks story on a deeper level, then the Longer Mars Version is what one watches

+1. The American one is the best version for me, more Kubrick = better. Im not American.

If Im going to watch The Shining I want to see more - not less!

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I would not have the time or effort to post links or citations, but I have read from several places that he preferred the shorter European version and edited the American version one week after it was released (removing a scene about the tennis ball at the end). That Kubrick liked the European version is not surprising. He did lots of strange things. He hated letterbox for home video. While he was a perfectionist on many things (read about the typewriter and how he treated Shelly Duvall), the fact that the rotors on the helicopter made it in the shot is interesting. He likely intended a different aspect ratio and for the projectionist to cut that out. Just because he did certain things or preferred certain cuts in no way diminishes my love for his movies. I just so happened to have watched the US Blu-ray over the weekend. I thought it was as brilliant as ever. People debate his intentions on many things, and the problem is people have things for which to back their opinions up. I would love to hear a long interview from Stephen King about it, since there were interesting topics there as well.

Hmm interviewing Stephen King about this film would not be a good idea because he hates it!

Now I love Stephen King's books (especially his older ones) but Im afraid hes got this one wrong. His book is very good but Kubrick's film adaptation is better.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

Hmm interviewing Stephen King about this film would not be a good idea because he hates it!

Now I love Stephen King's books (especially his older ones) but Im afraid hes got this one wrong. His book is very good but Kubrick's film adaptation is better.

I actually like the movie better than the book, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say. There are rumors that Kubrick would call King in the early morning hours (due to Kubrick being in England) with off the wall conversations.

I also really agree with the poster that commented about the hidden meanings. Having seen it many times, my wife pointed out that Tony was Danny's method of coping with his inability to understanding his gift. These little touches are all through the movie. I would imagine if 2001 came out today (with a different title and dates moved forward), most people would hate it, and it is one of my all time favorite films.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

All of them are. The EU market hasn't gotten the longer version on BD as far as I know (not even sure if they did on DVD either). It really would be nice if Warner put out a definitive set with both cuts included. I think that can certainly be accomplished using seamless branching.

So, the Zavvi exclusive steelbook will be the cut version? :-(
And i was looking forward to it

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I actually like the movie better than the book, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say. There are rumors that Kubrick would call King in the early morning hours (due to Kubrick being in England) with off the wall conversations.

I also really agree with the poster that commented about the hidden meanings. Having seen it many times, my wife pointed out that Tony was Danny's method of coping with his inability to understanding his gift. These little touches are all through the movie. I would imagine if 2001 came out today (with a different title and dates moved forward), most people would hate it, and it is one of my all time favorite films.

I saw a quick interview with Stephen King earlier this week I think. They tried asking him about the film and whether he liked it and he said no and didn't want to talk about it.

Anyone seen the King-approved TV film? You don't want to trust me!

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

I saw a quick interview with Stephen King earlier this week I think. They tried asking him about the film and whether he liked it and he said no and didn't want to talk about it.

Anyone seen the King-approved TV film? You don't want to trust me!

King wrote a book. King needs to learn that some books, although good, don't necessarily translate well to screen as is.

Kubrik's film is not supposed to be an adaption of King's book. It's "inspired by".... loosely based on....etc. The sooner King understands this, the better he can rest.

To Kubrick's credit, he likes to use advanced psychology to communicate hidden narratives in his films. These are things Kings novel did not have. So Kubrick essentially takes a theme and runs with it HIS way.

That is why Kubriks version is superior to Kings book

No disrespect to King, but, it seems most of his plots revolve around something being cursed; whether its a car, graveyard, gypsy, hotel, or spider under the house...

[rickah88]

Has anyone seen the documentary Room 237 yet? I believe it came out in 2012 but seems to have stalled in my Netflix account, for some unknown reason. I hope it wasn't cancelled.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Has anyone seen the documentary Room 237 yet? I believe it came out in 2012 but seems to have stalled in my Netflix account, for some unknown reason. I hope it wasn't cancelled.

It came out last Tuesday. There's some really cool pics of the packaging for it in its official thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...light=room+237

Originally Posted by GxyExpress999

[rickah88]

I swear I searched for it prior to posting here? How did I botch that?
Anyway thanks for the info! I'm off to that thread!

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Has anyone seen the documentary Room 237 yet? I believe it came out in 2012 but seems to have stalled in my Netflix account, for some unknown reason. I hope it wasn't cancelled.

Yes. But if you like that, you'll LOVE this...
- try Rob Agers deep analysis of everything The Shining:

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining.html

He compiled this years ago (along with other film analysis') and adds to it when sees fit.
Absolutely brilliant. So much so that the people making Room 237 approached him!

Once you start reading how deep Kubrick went with The Shining, you won't be able to stop!

As you can see, its easily broken down into 23 chapters

[nagysaudio]

I always "thought" that I preferred the European cut and for the longest time I've tried to make myself like it, but in the end... In the end, the U.S. cut is superior in every possible and imaginable way. No comparison.

The U.S. cut sets the mood better, the pace, and the flow of the whole darn thing. The Euro trash cut feels choppy and nervous in comparison and not in a good way.

I'm the first one to advocate the cutting of pointless exposition (The Dark Knight would be 8 minutes long after I'm done), but NEVER at the expense of the mood and flow and the proper amount of time necessary to tell a story.

The U.S. cut is a masterpiece.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

I always "thought" that I preferred the European cut and for the longest time I've tried to make myself like it, but in the end... In the end, the U.S. cut is superior in every possible and imaginable way. No comparison.

The U.S. cut sets the mood better, the pace, and the flow of the whole darn thing. The Euro trash cut feels choppy and nervous in comparison and not in a good way.

I'm the first one to advocate the cutting of pointless exposition (The Dark Knight would be 8 minutes long after I'm done), but NEVER at the expense of the mood and flow and the proper amount of time necessary to tell a story.

The U.S. cut is a masterpiece.

Right. He chose to finalize it the way the USA version is. That's his gut feeling. His passion.
It wasn't til after the first week here, and how it was FIRST received here, that he ran to edit out some parts for the Euro audience.

What's that tell you? That it was only business!

He might have full control of his release and what to do with it... etc but he is still in business. The business of MAKING MOVIES.

If he wants studios to shell out money to fund his next picture, The Shining has to do well. Otherwise the next film may be funded by his own wallet. Hitchcock went through that!

So to sum up, he only edited it to try to get a better commercially received vehicle.

He wouldn't spend a year making a film, spend countless hours on every detail, just to make a mistake and accidentally put out a longer version!!! The USA version is exactly what he wanted. The euro version is the result of pressure.

.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

I saw a quick interview with Stephen King earlier this week I think. They tried asking him about the film and whether he liked it and he said no and didn't want to talk about it.

Anyone seen the King-approved TV film? You don't want to trust me!

Stephen King tells 2 quick stories about working with Stanley Kubrick:

Stephen King remembers Stanley Kubrick - YouTube

Discusses The Shining:

Stephen King discusses Kubrick's The Shining - YouTube

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by shogun123

Kubrick cut the coda from the American release just after a week of it being in theatres, he then cut it further for the UK release, not because of pacing or pressure from studio (Kubrick had full power) but because he later deemed that it needed a further edit.

Kubrick's preferred cut is the Euro release, the only ones saying that it is not are Americans.

Yet again, what is the source for this idea that Kubrick preferred the shorter European cut? Everything I've ever read has said that he cut the film for purely commercial reasons- he wanted THE SHINING to be a huge hit, and while it was financially a hit in the U.S., it wasn't as huge a hit as he wanted, so he cut the film to a more commercial length for a horror film before it played European cinemas months later.

It's kind of amazing that folks are arguing that the shorter, haphazardly faster-edited European version of THE SHINING is somehow the more 'intelligent' version of the film. The exact opposite is usually the case- the European versions of most movies are longer, while the U.S. cuts are cut down in order to "improve the pace" (ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, THE LEOPARD, DEEP RED, DUCK YOU SUCKER...). So in the singular case of THE SHINING, it was the exact opposite? Somehow Kubrick magically found a formula for this one film wherein removing character motivation and detail somehow made it "more intelligent" and better? Yeah, okay...

Chris

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

Anyone seen the King-approved TV film? You don't want to trust me!

You mean the mini series?

Yes I have and I actually enjoyed it. No its not anywhere as well made as Kubrick's film but it does remain more faithful to the source material and it does do a few things better IMO.